geisha779

Shouldn't the context and the point of Paul's letter play some part in how we look at these verses? He started out trying to again share the gospel with them, but he had to wade through all kinds of questions. The things that were going on in this church with morality, personal relationships, and the influx of false teaches, all have to weigh into how we look at what Paul is trying to convey and the heart he is trying to encourage. Concerning ourselves with one verse and how it is translated seems short-sighted to me.....if we can't get a handle on intention....we can make that verse mean whatever we like. Outside of Way world or its periphery, I have never heard anyone claim it is as he the man wills. It doesn't fit within a high view of God or within the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Then again, I have really not heard the Holy Spirit referred to as other than a person, meaning with personal characteristics. The belief that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force is going to definitely play into how we look at this and other verses.

Yes, false teachers teach false doctrine. False teachers teach an aberrant view of scripture. False teachers eyes are not full of God's glory or purpose, rather, they are full of adultery. False teachers never stop sinning, they are experts in greed, and they thrive by enticing unstable souls. They target people who are young in faith and burdened by sin. They seek those who are disillusioned with church and they seek them out for personal ego and gain. The biggest false teacher of our particular club was the one who led most of us into TWI's version of SIT. Breath in, breath out, like..as..of..a.. rushing mighty wind. VP was the one who taught us what all those verses he used "really" meant. What he taught us is well outside of orthodoxy. Actually, that is what I loved about it. Because of what he taught us, and he was so cunning, it can be difficult to look at these verses in any other light. It can be very difficult to see beyond that peculiar theology. It is all built together with the other things he taught us and we wanted to hear. I think it is really built around the denial of core Christian tenets. Again, if the Holy Spirit is the one who guides us into all truth and reveals Jesus as Lord to us......and we were all perfectly praying to God by SIT in TWI, speaking mysteries, and we were to seek personal edification, and we were really being built up in the inner man by SIT. Why, were we so deceived? The simple answer is...it was a lie. All of it. It is not biblical SIT, and what VP told us it was for or how we were to "use" it was just his twisted take on scripture. His own personal freak show on the Holy Spirit who was really MIA.

So, what do we win if we did know Hendricks up close and personal? Personally, I am just glad we did survive how he personified the "love of God". It was questionable that one would survive if you got on his bad side or money was involved. How anyone could support a ministry founded on his perception of God, the scriptures, or love, is beyond me. From my vantage point....it is not the people posting here who have a problem.

With all the perfect prayer, believing and manifesting going on in TWI.....there seems to be a real disconnect between the ministry of the Holy Spirit(for lack of a better term)and our sojourn in a Christ denying cult. If the Holy Spirit is the one who reveals Jesus as Lord.....and leads us into all truth, why were we so deceived? Why was Jesus really missing in our faith? Absent? I can't reconcile the two.

I don't remember hearing that one slandered? I don't doubt it, I just don't remember. What a great hymn. Thanks for that. <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/brVIlXlJRkQ" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

I like to think of faith as trusting the Lord. I trust Jesus with everything and in everything, because He is worthy of that trust. I also trust that He is who claimed to be and I trust there isn't any better, or anything I could ever want more. Probably not a textbook answer. . . . guess you will have to take it on faith!

I thought this article was helpful in considering the continuity of tongues throughout the accounts in Acts. I know that some argue understanding tongues was a miraculous event only occasionally seen. . . . but, this gives some perspective to the other accounts which is worth considering. This is just a sampling of the article which I linked to. http://www.mountainr...toftongues.html The argument is made by some charismatics that once one leaves the unusual circumstances of Pentecost, we actually see a different kind of tongues being manifested, i.e., an ecstatic speech of unintelligible sounds which is unrelated to any human language. They refer to this gift of tongues as being a miraculous language which is used in heaven between God and the angels, or as the language of the Spirit which man may attain in prayer as he is seized by the Spirit and caught up into heaven. This, many believe, is the kind of tongues found in the remainder of Acts and in 1 Corinthians 12-14. As we begin to examine this view, we will start with an evaluation of the other notable occurrences of tongues in the book of Acts. 1) Acts 10 - the house of Cornelius. The second clear instance of speaking in tongues occurs with Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:44-48. As Peter was preaching, the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out upon Cornelius and his household. Then, Peter and the Jewish believers "were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God" (v. 46). Is there any evidence that these tongues were of a different kind or nature than what occurred at Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they speaking in a foreign language, or were they speaking in a jibberish? The evidence argues for continuity with Acts 2, not discontinuity: a) Luke uses the same terminology here that he used in Acts 2. In acts 10:46 it states that they were "speaking in tongues" (lalounton glossais )which is the same expression used in Acts 2:4, 11. If Cornelius and his family were speaking in a different kind of tongue, say a jibberish, there is no indication from Luke that this was the case. He gives no hints or clues that something is different or unusual compared to what happened at Pentecost. b) Both Luke and Peter acknowledge a continuity between what happened at Pentecost and what is happening with Cornelius. (1) Luke says in Acts 10:45 that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also ." Luke says, in effect, that the same gift that came in Acts 2 came in Acts 10, that what happened at Jerusalem during Pentecost also happened at Caesarea in the house of Cornelius. There is no indication that the gift of the Holy Spirit which was being manifested through the speaking in tongues was any different here than in Acts 2. (2) Peter also agrees. In v. 47 he says, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did , can he?" Peter believed that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit in the very same way that they did at Pentecost. This expression is designed to draw the closest parallel between Peter's experience at Pentecost and what happened to Cornelius. This continuity of experience between Pentecost and Cornelius is confirmed by Peter a second time when he returned to Jerusalem and explained to the circumcised believers what happened to Cornelius (Acts 11:4-17). In his defense, Peter asserts, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning . . . If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I stand in God's way?" (vv. 15, 17). Peter, again, argues that what happened at Pentecost to the circumcised believers also happened to uncircumcised Cornelius in exactly the same way. The Holy Spirit fell upon them both in the same way, "just as He did upon us at the beginning" (v. 15). Peter also states that God gave them the "same gift as He gave to us also" (v. 17). How did Peter know that they received the same gift as he did at Pentecost? Peter must have in view not just the gift of the Holy Spirit but also the Spirit's manifestation of His presence through speaking in tongues, otherwise what tangible evidence was there for Peter's confident assertion that God gave to Cornelius the same gift? Since the Holy Spirit is Himself invisible, the gift of the Holy Spirit can only be known through the way in which He manifests Himself. Since speaking in tongues were being manifested, this must have been the way in which Peter knew that the Gentiles had received the same gift as he had received. Thus, the "same gift" to which Peter refers must include a reference, not only to the Spirit Himself, but also to their speaking in the same kind of tongues which were manifested at Pentecost; namely, foreign languages. All of this supports the view that the speaking in tongues in Acts 10 correlates exactly with what happened at Pentecost. There is no indication given by Luke or Peter that what was experienced by Cornelius was anything other than what occurred at Pentecost. If the manifestation of tongues at Pentecost consisted in speaking a foreign language, then the same must have occurred with Cornelius for there is no evidence of anything new taking place. Therefore, the description of the experience of Cornelius argues strongly for continuity with the same gift of tongues given at Pentecost. c) Apparently the language of the tongues being spoken was understood by some of the Jewish believers for they recognized that Cornelius and his family were exalting God (v. 46). This would argue against a jibberish unless of course the gift of interpretation was being utilized, but again, there is no indication that this was the case. Although this is a lesser argument, it may also contribute to the case for continuity between Acts 2 and 10.

Hey....now I can read my own post and understand it! :) I love it! Thank you Socks. . . .

Homework? Is there extra credit? Are you taking off points for spelling? Are we getting a shout out in the footnotes of this thesis? Have a good week.

I think it is funny in that ironic sort of way. The best defense against slander is to tell the truth, so, if the list, that is as long as my arm, of people born of Satan's seed is true.....no harm no foul. If it is not really hate speech to wish it were old testament times, so that stoning homosexuals is acceptable....no problem. If it is true that every person they accused of being filled with devil spirits...is in fact, filled with devil spirits. . . . they are in the clear. If Satan did bring down a plane and kill someone because their relatives left the Way..... then they are covered. If in fact, they are God's only true household on the planet and the rest of humanity inferior by default....cops outs and walking empties....what is the problem? We minister edification, not destruction. I guess in some parallel universe, someone, somewhere, may consider what they minister as edifying. But, they really should have added a caveat to, not destruction. Maybe something like, "Unless of course you leave our ministry.....then we may sing about washing our feet in your blood". You have to admire their nerve.

Didn't some church or some Pastors reach out to JAL? I could have that messed up, but if so, whatever became of that? Not sure what kind of church it was either. . . . JAL always gave me the heebie jeebies. He yelled at me in front of the entire advanced class. I wasn't the only one he singled out, but it was frustrating because he put me in an impossible situation.....kept relevant information from me....and then got angry because I didn't do what he specifically told me not to do. He was a jerk.

An example of an easily identifiable quote. Oh no, wait....it isn't a good example! It is Johniam quoting me and responding, but it is difficult to tell who is being quoted and where my words end and his response begins....! My bad. Carry on

[quote name='johniam' date='25 September 2012 - 07:41 AM' timestamp='1348573305' post='546115' . . . The one body. We today are just as much a part of the body of Christ as was the first century believers. That's never going to change. Do you notice the little box above with your user name in it? When used properly, this holds the point I am addressing and makes it is easily identifiable as your quote. If not used or used improperly it may cause confusion. Using this feature correctly, is helpful to other posters who may not be reading all posts or following along as closely. It is designed for easy use and a polite way to include all people in the conversation. When logged in, all you have to do, is hit the reply button at the bottom of the post you want to respond to and all the information is there for you at the top of the reply box. It is very convenient. I also like to indicate, in that little box, that this is a partial quote, cut off at some point. This way, if other readers are curious, they can go back and read the entire quote. As we don't always quote entire posts and may only want to address one point, the proper way to indicate a partial quote is with three ellipses. Although, this way may get lost in posts like mine where I use them improperly all the time....so, simply typing in the word "snip" is a good alternative. Would you please consider doing this for the posters here to help follow the ebb and flow of conversation and to keep who is saying what clear? Thanks, I appreciate it. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Back to topic or rather, wait....not really, but to quickly respond to Johniam's point. There is a wealth of assumption in your assertion. I don't assume we all are Christian, or that any who were not Christian before TWI ever became a Christian in TWI. Especially....Especially......because of SIT.

I read your question and thought about it. . . .you are not alone in that question.:) Given what we did in TWI with the bible and bibliolatry, can you imagine the temptations that would come if we had Jesus own writings in our hands? Yikes!

I don't think God did choose SIT as a sign for Christians. We don't need a sign, we have faith. :)

Okay. . . . . I think you may have a much different take on the gifts of the HS and the Holy Spirit Himself, than I do, as well as the Lord. I would go to the trinity to explain how Father, Son, and HS work as one, but I don't call them the same. Guess what? I am not going there. But, to be honest....I don't have too much more discussion in me. If you want to read my post in the other thread on Corinthians....that is the extent of my contribution for a bit. I really do not believe we did SIT in TWI or were doing what they did in Acts. I know I didn't. I have serious doubts about the rest of us as well. If the HS leads us into all truth and it is He who reveals Jesus Christ to us and this brings glory to God.....there was a serious disconnect. You quoted Oral Roberts....I responded. As for the rest, if that is what you believe....I don't mind.

I think you are right. "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"

I do appreciate the answer Tom. Please don't take exception, but I can't go there with you....there was a time I believed the same thing....but not anymore. Just a couple of thoughts....we would have to assume that all Christians are given the gift of SIT, if that is what builds us up in the inner man. I don't SIT. We would have to assume that the practice of SIT, is actually for edification of the individual, and not, as what I believe Paul is calling selfish and the wrong heart toward spiritual gifts. We would also have to assume that SIT in or outside the assembly (uninterpreted) for prayer is more than speaking into the air, as no one understands it. We would have to assume that SIT is speaking mysteries to God in a positive way instead of what I believe Paul is saying, that it is a mystery to everyone, but God, because no one else understands it. It is simply a mystery because it is unintelligible. Furthermore, we would have to take credit for doing something, that God's Spirit does, by His riches and Glory and by His grace and His mercy. In other words, we would have to stand before Jesus Christ, with the nail marks in His hands and tell Him....we SIT to build up our inner man. I'll pass on that one. Same for the verse in Romans. If it is the Spirit making intercession with groaning which cannot be uttered ....and we are uttering it and doing it....it is not the Spirit, but us operating the Spirit. Kind of takes the God out of God. No? I do believe God has set teachers in the body for our edification.....so, not really sure what the back hills would do for me. I don't mind sound theology or people with letters after their names. Left with no accountability and some communally reinforced deception .....I have been known to believe some pretty wacky things. I was in a cult after all! :)

I am sure your mom was great...I never meant to imply anything less. As for TWI, I do find it a tiny bit ironic that they were so willing to bash theologians and scholarship....but so ready to embrace the knowledge found in the back hills of....wherever the person telling that same story, decided the hills would be. And this is the ministry I supported with my blood, sweat, and paycheck. Go figure.

I don't know why things might have changed other than what God decides He needs, as tongues and any gift are for His glory and His purpose. What is available to us has little to do with it IMO. There seemed to be a real purpose to them in the 1st century. "So He will speak to this people in a stammering lip and a foreign language." The church was being established. And so on.... Maybe the "sign" gifts stopped with the Apostles. But, I don't know. I don't think I can know. I am not fully convinced on either extreme. Weren't you the one that said the purpose on the day of Pentecost, where people were added to the church hearing their own languages, a one time deal? I didn't say it. SIT would have had to change right away. Why would it? Why would it ever change? That begs the question.... if we are doing the same thing now......why? What is the purpose? It simply causes division and hardly brings glory to God. It is not rocking the unbelievers world....they are studying us like a freak show. What is the point of tongues. I don't SIT. I do know it had a definitive and causal purpose in the 1st century. A believer doesn't need proof Jesus is Lord and trustworthy. So, they are not a sign for the believer. You say, they are for building up ones own self. I say, that Paul was reproving the church and telling them that seeking one's own edification was not love, but selfish, and that 14:4 was not an admonition to do it to build ourselves up , but rather a contrast to the correct desire to build up others. You say it is for private prayer and worship.....I say, that it was for prayer in assembly and to be interpreted and Paul is telling them .....if there is no one to interpret....and you can't be quiet and quit disturbing the congregation...go do it quietly to yourself. I don't see it as being for private prayer or worship. God would not equip some for private prayer and worship and not others. It may very well be prayer, but without understanding...it is rather pointless. Like speaking into the air. I think it is clear in chapter 12 that not each saint is equipped with all the gifts. You may read that differently, but none of the other gifts are for private use. Someone with a healing ministry doesn't go around building themselves up.....same with helps, managing, miracles. You may see it as speaking mysteries to God....I don't think so. God knows all mysteries, and the speaker has no clue what is being said. I read that quite differently. I read it as reproof and sarcasm....not declaration. Tongues is only mentioned a few places in scripture despite that list of 11 or so reason VP gave us for SIT. Most of those are not actually about tongues. Acts gives us accounts and Corinthians is correction for a very gifted but, seriously messed up church. Paul's tone, is loving, but forceful, and sometimes sharply ironic. It can't be read without keeping his main point in mind. Seek after edification of one another. -------------------------------------------------- Excellent post Socks! Just excellent. I love your heart.

Well, there is another one to add to the list of times I have heard that same story. Told ya. We certainly did appeal to the expertise of hill folk. Steve, maybe you should do your thesis there in the backwater of KY. And just out of curiosity....your mother was born in 1919?!? I feel like a kid. Thanks for that. :)

What if we can't know? What if there is no way to know for a certainty? Maybe, too much time has passed. VP had to appeal to direct revelation from God to carry his authority on much of what he presented as the truth. That his "truth" flies in the face of most core Christian doctrine and practices and appears to breed arrogance should give one pause. That I depended on his scriptural perspective and authority is what I had to overcome. All I know is I don't speak in tongues....if God requires me to. . . and has a purpose for it in my life at this time. I just don't see it in scripture

Well, I was just recounting my experience with that particular story...I didn't mean to put you on trial either. It was just one of those things that has stuck with me for years. Since Steve has graciously given us some latitude on this thread....I am interested in how you make the leap from God purifying His words, to Him purifying the language of our lives. How do you get there? Mormon's often depend on a "burning in their bosom" to know if something is true. They have what they call a "testimony" and when something feels right or good to their ears . . . they get a burning in their bosom. Their experiences then gird these testimonies and they believe God is showing them that their doctrines are true through those experiences. Mormons are among some of the most zealous for God, but, if I recounted some of their current doctrines, and some that fundamentalist Mormons still cling to.....you might strongly disagree with them. When confronted with scripture, Mormons often make claims that the bible can't be trusted. Except of course, the parts rewritten by Joseph Smith. They believe they are the one true church on earth and that Joseph Smith received the restored gospel. For years, their Temple ceremonies included a portrayal of an Orthodox Christian minister as being a tool of the devil. They rely heavily on their extra biblical scriptures, BOM, (Book of Mormon) D&C(Doctrine and Covenants) and the Pearl of Great Price. But, they appeal to their personal testimony to know if something is true. It all starts with an experience. Other sects are also very experienced based including many Pentecostals, who rely on tongues as evidence they have received the HS. They can have great angst without that proof. That is problematic on so many levels. So, whose experience ends up pointing to the truth? I personally can't make the leap from God purifying His word to Him purifying the experiences of our lives. We are told to rely on our conscience and the creation, which makes us accountable before Him, but, told we are transformed by renewal to something outside of ourselves. Not our experiences. We are to cast down vain imaginations and every high thing which exalts itself against the knowledge of God. If, we are participating and practicing something in a manner that is not scriptural, but experienced based, I think we may wander into vain imaginations. Without the Holy Spirit dwelling in our heart...it is all an exercise in futility and words anyway. The perspective we need when reading scripture, must come from the heart with which it was written. It is not all academic, but, neither is it all visceral. It is a matter of heart and how I read about SIT matters above my experiences. My take.

Well, if I were you, I would be a bit ticked, as several others have borrowed it and made it their own personal experience and what they saw as well. . . and it was, that they got their bibles, and they were big old family bibles, opened them up and pointed. Heard it a few times now. :)

I am not doubting your story Tom, about the folks in the back hills of NC, but, I have heard this exact same story from many TWI people. One, I remember, was the branch leader in Western NC. In a teaching, he recounted the exact story you did. Another, roamed the hills in TN. The reason I remember this running theme is because I heard it so much, that, at the time I had to wonder about it. You may not believe this,:) but, I was thinking about this story not all that long ago. It has stuck with me all these years. Not because of the impact it made on what I believed, but rather because of the commonalities. . . . it was suspicious. Whenever I heard it, it was used to support the idea that JCING. These "hill people" who had never been exposed to theology, but, had simply read the scriptures on their own for years......would respond by pulling out their bibles, and saying something to the effect...."It says Son of God, not God the Son". These hill people got around. I am serious....I remember these stories. Maybe VP set you all loose in the hills of the South or in Appalachia. Could be. Not trying to start a flame war.....please.....I am just telling you.... I do remember this story from way back. I was in NC for years.